THE BEADY EYE ASKS. WHAT IS IT THAT DRIVES MEN LIKE DONALD TRUMP.

Tags

 

( A five-minute read)

Far be it from me, that I in this post say I know what drives a men like Trump.Afficher l'image d'origine

They say you get to know a person by what he or she says, or does not say.  By their actions and non actions.

Like many of us, I was ill-prepared for the possibility of such a man becoming President of the United States.

Trump has nothing to do with politics or ideology. He has to do with himself.

With Politics (on both sides of the pond) now set to become the greatest show on earth his unpredictability will be his strength in office.

As a  reflection of the American way of life is he truly not really worth comprehending?

A man so utterly devoid of policy ideas he thinks that saying the words ‘tremendous’, ‘beautiful’ and ‘great’ is all you need.

In an era of highly polarized politics I suppose it is worth understanding what caused Trump’s win.

He identified the central issue motivating the American electorate and then convinced a plurality of the voters in the states that mattered that he was the best person to bring change.

Donald Trump’s supporters know exactly what he stands for: hatred of immigrants, racial superiority, a sneering disregard of the basic civility that binds a society.”

So this is the beginning of a modern trend in which politicians like Trump directly and explicitly play into people’s prejudices to win elections — and it works.

Trump now takes office on the strength of his demagoguery.

A student of little else, Trump is an intuitive expert in popular fantasy.

Capitalism chose long ago to turn its back on people’s concerns, making itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a “creative class” that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone apps.

As a result left political parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people but today’s self-absorbed elites, have become addicted to their wealth and to traditional authority, and never imagined their influence could disappear.

Allour Donald Trump.The Romans Tried to Save the Republic From Men Like Trump. They Failed.

Donald Trump talks about trade, in a ham-handed way.

It seems to obsess him to the point of selling any values of the USA.

A man who wants to deport millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants.

A man who wants to bar Muslims from visiting the United States.

A man who admires various foreign strong men and dictators, and has even retweeted a quote from Mussolini.

A man who is not against torture, which Mrs May (the unelected prime minister of Great Britain) is about discover during her special tortured meeting. The Trade agreement if any she comes away with won’t be worth the paper it is written on. It more than likely will ensure a hard Brixit.

Considering the historical baggage of the English Empire we should not however be surprised that she is the first female leader to meet Trump.

The man is an insult clown, who has systematically gone down the list of American ethnic groups and offended them each in turn.

This gold-plated buffoon has in turn drawn the enthusiastic endorsement of leading racists from across the spectrum of intolerance, a gorgeous mosaic of haters, each of them now quivering excitedly that they have a real, honest-to-god bigot in the White House.

I would advise MRS MAY to stop sleepwalking, and wake up.

He is allowing his supporters to indulge in a vision of unrestrained ego, and by extension, a vision of unrestrained national power.

Trump is now just beginning to complete his biggest and most astonishing demolition of the Western World, with personal vice is a source of his power, which now becomes a sign of state power.

Fortunately the United States constitution is specifically designed to prevent presidents from doing too much damage.

But the carefully, intelligently designed checks and balances built into the American system of government have been so eroded over the last century that a president Trump could do the sort of harm the founding fathers wished to prevent.

What’s worrying about Trump is his unpredictability, his disregard for any boundary between truth and self-serving fiction, his unbridled narcissism, his instability, and his apparent desire to pursue his enemies with the tools of high office.

It becomes slightly frightening to unpack the implications of this.

It’s a troublesome sign implying we are so used to politicians lying that we actually expect it, and that when someone comes along who is refusing to play the game, we reward them even if we don’t like them.

What can you say or see that is good about him?

Trump’s words articulate the populist backlash against liberalism that has been building slowly for decades.

Trump, while his statements are sometimes shocking, is at the very least consistent.

That means that we as a public can think that Trump is sexist, racist, or whatever the inflammatory comment du jour is, and still be more comfortable with him as the president because he appears to not be lying or hiding his feelings.

With power come not only the fame but also, more importantly, the fortune. Heads of state or government are supposed to be the servants of the people, but it may be an extremely difficult and even thankless job.

Vladimir Putin, President of Russia – $40 billion: 

Bhumibol Adulyadej, King of Thailand – $30 billion:

Hassanal Bolkiah, Sultan of Brunei – $20 billion

Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia – $18 billion

Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of United Arab Emirates – $15 billion

Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Emir of Dubai – $4 billion

Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechstenstein – $4 billion

Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, Emir of Qatar – $2.5 billion

Mohammed VI, King of Morocco – $2.5 billion

Theresa May salary of £143,462 plus perks.

How Rich Is Donald Trump? You Don’t Want to Know. The number may be illusory,

The illusion of direct, free-flowing connection he creates through Twitter fabricates a sense of what the Cameroonian political calls  “convivial” intimacy between himself and the citizenry.

The truth is no one really knows what is going to happen, the tremors of a trade wars is in the air.

Because of Donald John Trump, whatever happens next, it will never be like it was before.

As long as you live you’ll never see a photograph of 7 women signing legislation about what men can do with their reproductive organs.Afficher l'image d'origine

Now this is more like it.

Donald Trump signed an executive order to cut off funding to cities that don’t turn over their immigrants to Trump’s deportation force or other federal (anti-) immigration officials on Tuesday,

The more Trump’s views are discussed in the media, the more they are activated and the stronger they get, both in the minds of hardcore conservatives and in the minds of moderate progressives.

Ultimately the fate of the World is not going to be determined by any politician.

The third World is booming economically and want growth at any price, and as fast as possible. Coupling this desire with huge population growth, especially in africa, and a disaster is looming.

Even the EU has huge problems cooperating internally once fundamental interests are at stake, or different ideological perceptions clash.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: OUR EDUCATION IS OUT OF DATE.

Tags

, , ,

( A three-minute read for all Educators)

I see the movement towards AI and robotics as evolutionary, in large part because it is such a sociological leap. The technology may be ready, but we are not—at least, not yet.

It is widely agreed that education is the most effective means that society possesses for confronting the challenges of the future.Afficher l'image d'origine

Indeed, education will shape the world of tomorrow NOT TECHNOLOGY.

The changes we have seen in the past 20 years may one day seem trivial compared with those of the coming decades.

Robotics and Artificial Intelligence will permeate wide segments of daily life by 2025, with huge implications for a range of industries such as health care, transport and logistics, customer service, and home maintenance.

There will be a vast displacement of labor over the next decade.

The most critical question facing the academic world is something far more fundamental THAN OBTAINING A DEGREE:

Our system of education forces students to “qualify” in something.

Although this works reasonably well in service to core professional competencies, this arbitrary structure does little to encourage breadth of education.

Namely, what it will mean to be an educated person in the 21st century.

One of the great challenges for students and our schools, UNIVERSITIES is to evolve beyond the narrow confines of “disciplines” and embrace the chaos and uncertainty of a rapidly changing world, bearing in mind that the “discipline” of today is the forgotten history of the future.

It is for this reason that education is the primary agent of transformation towards sustainable development.

It is also for this reason that society must be deeply concerned that much of the education presently on offer falls far short of what is required.

Improving the quality and coverage of education and reorienting its goals to recognize the importance of sustainable development must be among society’s highest priorities.

The world has changed a lot in the last 150 years, but we humans are driven by the same basic needs as we were 150 years ago, food, sleep, sex, the feeling of being appreciated and loved. Will this change in the next 150 years? No.

Where a notebook and pen may have formed the tool kit of prior generations, today’s students come to class armed with smart phones, laptops and iPods.

Curricula are created as if there are predictable paths to careers, we are basically teaching students to be status-quo oriented.  And they will find little supply of status quo in the future.

Will this new generation of leaders be innovators, or followers?  Strong, resilient problem solvers, or servants of the status quo?

The answer has everything to do with education  . . . or how education is adapted to the realities and wonderful opportunities of the not-too-distant future.

A brand new generation of business and institutional leaders is taking the reins.

The world has continued to shrink and is much, much smaller.  Technology has continued an unabated, unchecked progression; what is now futuristic has become commonplace.  Complexity is the daily norm, and change the only constant. Opportunities, problems and grand challenges abound.

Sweeping technological changes will effectively change the skill-sets of the future workforce, as well as its approach to work in general.Afficher l'image d'origine

As a result, societies around the world will need to consider how to make their educational programs to understand the impact of our individual and collective actions on ourselves and on the biosphere as a whole to make the most of these new opportunities.

Today people are more aware than ever of global realities but ill-equipped both to understand or influence those realities.

Education increases the capacities of people to transform their visions of society into operational realities.

Circumstances change and change rapidly, and the career students think they are preparing for today will simply disappear in ten years.

Students need an education that will leave them resilient and  prepared to turn on a pin prick.

In a sense all of this can be summarized as the need to teach students to dare, to experiment and to fail with joy.

Leadership:    As a discipline, a thing to be practiced and learned, leadership is a woefully low priority in education.

Authenticity:   Learning about yourself is perhaps the single most important outcome of a powerful educational experience.  Self-awareness can lead to an ever-increasing authenticity, which in turn leads to powerful leadership abilities.

Everyone will have multiple jobs, careers and life experiences and rarely will any one way of thinking or one path to career preparation have a very long shelf life.

Technological innovation, long a hallmark of academic research, may now be changing the very way that universities teach and students learn.

Conformity, and dumbing down by interconnected technology will result in a world where so few will dare to be eccentric marks the chief danger of our time.Afficher l'image d'origineAll comments welcome. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: SO, WHAT IS THE WORLD– EXPECTING –AND HOPING FOR– FROM A TRUMP PRESIDENCY?

Tags

( A two-minute read)

It is difficult, of course, to predict how Trump’s administration will address ANY world issues never mind American issues and what the result will be.Afficher l'image d'origine

Trump has positive qualities that detractors should recognize: ideological flexibility, an ability to negotiate, great communication skills.

However, they seem easily overwhelmed by his obvious flaws: bigoted policies that target religions and utterances that slander Mexicans, a brash and imperious style, a tendency to hold grudges long beyond their sell-by date.

Trump is used to having his way. It’s extremely unlikely anyone will ever utter the phrase “poor Donald.”

The history of predicting how presidencies will play out isn’t pretty.

His Presidency is going to raise profound questions about America’s place in the world.

If you are to judge him by his words he phrases solutions in terms of “I,” but America is a “we” country.“

I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.” Would the wall do as intended? And could Trump really secure the money to pay for it?

The answer to both is probably no.

03_25_Trump_05

Trump is no match for the American political system, with its three branches of government.

Trump’s more likely to end up like Jimmy Carter—a poor craftsman of legislation and a crushing disappointment to his supporters.

So what will the Trump presidency be like?

Trump’s success will fuel the populist, nativist, nationalist, closed-border movements already so evident in Europe and spreading to other parts of the world.

He will try to rewrite the rules of modern alliances, trade deals, and foreign aid. For the Middle East, it foreshadowed a possible alignment with Russia and fresh conflict with Iran.

It promises to Upend the International Order.

An America more focused on its own affairs while leaving the world to take care of itself.“ presidency will make the U.S. sink into a full-blown crisis, including an economic one.”

Every moment will be a challenge. Every move or declaration will be something that will not make us comfortable. No matter what he is going to be America’s most unpredictable commander-in-chief. Trump speaks his own mind on major international issues — and sometimes disagrees with his own mind too.

We all know what Trump thinks of China. China could dump US assets.

Trump’s reign will pose new threats to already fragile world economy.

There will be a slowdown in the global economy.

If Trump wants to ramp up the bombing of the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), as he’s promised, it’s unlikely Congress can stop him.

The temptation to use executive orders will proved irresistible.

Jokes aside, the consequences to poor people, immigrants, LGBTQ people, people of color, women, Muslims and more could be disastrous. He’s also not a savior. Due to his solipsistic personality and vague, unworkable policies, he could never be what he promises.

In case you haven’t noticed, Trump kind of openly despises the media. He is already pretty bad at making friends of international leaders.

It’s more than likely Trump would wind up being just another president on the alphabetical roll call.

He seems like the antithesis of the outgoing president.

You would be a fool to think that none of this could happen in the good ole USA under President Trump. It is already happening.

After the inauguration, the president signed an executive order repealing Obama’s executive order that allowed as many as 5 million immigrants without documentation to stay in the U.S.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: DOES HUMANITY HAVE A FUTURE BEYOND EARTH?

Tags

, ,

 

 

How smart are we?

For 30,000 years our species has been changing remarkably quickly and we’re not done yet. We changed the world irrevocable and may soon transform ourselves as a species.Afficher l'image d'origine

The technology part sounds quite cyborg-ish, with humans developing their own QR Codes on skin (that would be kind of like DNA, I suppose), Chlorophyll skin (skin with chlorophyll) and digi-eye where the eye itself would presumably perform digital functions you would expect from a display.Afficher l'image d'origine

IF YOU’RE UNDER 45 YEARS OLD! GOD WILL BE WEARING A WHITE LAB COAT, WORKING IN A GENETIC LAB. These humans will evolve into electronic immortals. Mature in seconds, experiencing the years of angst via simulated reality in torrents of electrons.

The future of humanity is often viewed as a topic for idle speculation.

In that sense, it is hardly reasonable to think of the future of humanity as a topic: it is too big and too diverse to be addressed as a whole in a single essay, monograph, or even 100-volume book series.

One might argue that the current century, or the next few centuries, will be a critical phase for humanity and you would be right.

The first thing to notice is that the longer the time scale we are considering, the less likely it is that technological civilization will remain within the zone we termed “the human condition.”

The cumulative probability of post humanity, like that of extinction, increases monotonically over time.

Within a few centuries they will have become a new species traveling beyond the solar system.

An enterprise for posthumans—organic or inorganic.”

For example, whether and when Earth-originating life will go extinct, whether it will colonize the galaxy, whether human biology will be fundamentally transformed to make us post human, whether machine intelligence will surpass biological intelligence, whether population size will explode, and whether quality of life will radically improve or deteriorate: these are all important fundamental questions about the future of humanity.

One might believe that super intelligence will be developed within a few centuries, and that, while the creation of superi ntelligence will pose grave risks, once that creation and its immediate aftermath have been survived, the new civilization would have vastly improved survival prospects since it would be guided by super intelligent foresight and planning.

Once a human or post human civilization becomes dispersed over multiple planets and solar systems, the risk of extinction declines.

In the coming decade wearables will enable the equivalent of personalized weather forecasts for our health: 80 percent increased probability in health and happiness for you next week, based on your recent stress/sleep/social-emotional activities.

But what will human beings will look like in the future?

Afficher l'image d'origine

Our faces will have changed almost beyond recognition.

Through genetic engineering, everyone will have darker skin.

An amalgamation of evolution and genetic engineering will allow society to bend human biology to human needs. Bone-conduction devices, with embedded nanochips, will communicate with some external device for communications and entertainment.

Will we ever colonize outer space?

That depends on the definition of ‘colonize.’ If landing robots qualifies, than we’ve already done it. If it means sending microbes from Earth and having them persist and maybe grow, then, unfortunately, it’s not unlikely.

Will sex become obsolescent?

No, but having sex to conceive babies is likely to become at least much less common. In 20 to 40 years we’ll be able to derive eggs and sperm from stem cells.

We won’t need to speak since we will communicate telepathically to one another.

Our noses and ears, toes, even our chins will have disappearing.

Our brains will fit in our pockets.

We will be shorter and smaller due to overcrowding of the world.

We will have a flexible outer or exoskeleton.

We won’t be human at all but bio-robots from the future.

Perhaps it’s all bullshit. You’re surrounded by squabbling, vindictive, greedy, small-minded morons, the only thing that develops is the ability to engage mouth without engaging brain, you have to wonder if the species has hit an evolutionary cul-de-sac or is really capable of taking things further????

In every sector, human activities have proven to be altering/damaging the global eco-system at a speed so much fast than the self-adapt speed of the Earth.

If humanity goes extinct, it stays extinct.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: We need to be genuinely intelligent about how humankind anticipates artificial intelligence.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

 

( Seven Minute read )

Who programs the programmers?

Soon enough, it might not be people behind the development of advanced machines learning and artificial intelligence but other AI.

This will drastically reduce the human input required.

We must not be blinded by science, nor held captive by unfounded or fantastic fears.Afficher l'image d'origineI have previously posted blogs putting the case that all technology (whether it be atomic energy or nanotechnology, bioengineering or DNA mutilation, or Artificial Intelligence) should be subject to examinations by a New World Organisation, that is totally independent and transparent.

( It’s imperative that we do not leave such examinations to the whims of the marketplace nor the cost-benefit calculations of a given quarter to marinate Artificial Intelligence into a sense of human complacency.)

I have also stated that I am pro all technology that benefits mankind as a whole. However it is critical that those individuals who are on the front lines of research be thinking about the implications of their work.

The other day on arrival at Gatwick I was admitted by an Algorithm into the UK.

Since this Algorithm was focus by definition to be based on narrowly defined problems, it got me thinking, who or what wrote the software in the first place.

The ethics of artificial intelligence are non existence.

Whether we are aware of it or not, we are already moving into the era of AI where IBM’s Watson, Google’s AI, Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s Echo will be your new companion.

Once AI can analyze a person’s affective state it will be able to influence it.

Humans are driven by emotions, making a crucial component of perception, decision-making, learning, and more. 

Artificial intelligence is not yet emotional in the same ways that humans are, but it  won’t be long with all the data collection before this is achievable to prompt certain responses and induce desired emotions. 

Creepy or worse predatory.

What happens when one of the human negotiators has an emotionally aware assistant in is the corner.     

  Every decision that mankind makes is going to be informed by a cognitive system like Watson. That future is actually much closer than you think.

To be or not to be. “Are you a robot?” “What?! No I am a real person.”

Afficher l'image d'origine

For example:

Militaries are among the intense users of high-technology, and the adoption of that equipment has transformed decision-making throughout the chain of command. The removal of human beings from the act of killing and from war.

There must be a way to ensure that Artificial Intelligence that is introduced into what ever field of Technology is not dominated by those who have a stake in the expansion of AI for Profit Sake.

There is no excuse for not being aware of the risks that such AI carries for all of us.

These questions have been with us for a long time:

Alan Turing in 1950 asked whether machines could think and that same year writer Isaac Asimov contemplated what might happen if they could in “I, Robot.” (In truth, thinking machines can be found in ancient cultures, including those of the Greeks and the Egyptians.)

About 30 years ago, James Cameron served up one dystopia created by AI in “The Terminator.” Science fiction became fact in 1997 when IBM’s chess-playing Deep Blue computer beat world champion Garry Kasparov.

As the Internet and digital systems penetrate further each day into our daily lives, concerns about artificial intelligence (AI) are intensifying.

It is difficult to get exercised about connections between the “Internet of Things” and AI when the most visible indications are Siri (Apple’s digital assistant), Google translate and smart houses, but a growing number of people, including many with a reputation for peering over the horizon, are worried.

Nevertheless, a debate about prospects and possibilities is worthwhile.

We need to ensure that boundaries are set, not just for research but for all the applications of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

As the Internet and digital systems penetrate further each day into our daily lives, concerns about artificial intelligence (AI) are intensifying. It is difficult to get exercised about connections between the “Internet of Things” and AI when the most visible indications are Siri (Apple’s digital assistant), Google translate and smart houses, but a growing number of people, including many with a reputation for peering over the horizon, are worried.

Recently, there has been a growing chorus of concern about the potential for AI.

It began last year when inventor Elon Musk, a man who spends considerable time on the cutting edge of technology, warned that with AI “we’re summoning the demon.” In all those stories with the guy with the pentagram and the holy water, and he’s sure he can control the demon. It doesn’t work out.” For him, AI is an existential threat to humanity, more dangerous than nuclear weapons.

The possibilities created by “big data” are driving increasing automation and in some cases AI in the office environment.  Legal and administrative frameworks to deal with the proliferation of these technologies and AI have not kept pace with their application. Ethical questions are often not even part of the discussion.

And since their focus tends to be on narrowly defined problems, others who can address larger issues should join the discussion. This process should be occurring for all such technologies.

A month later, distinguished scientist Stephen Hawking told the BBC that he feared that the development of “full artificial intelligence” could bring an end to the human race. Not today, of course, but over time, machines could become both more intelligent and physically stronger than human beings. Last month, Microsoft founder Bill Gates joined the group, saying that he did not understand people who were not troubled by the prospect of AI escaping human control.

More recently, Google’s AlphaGo software beat South Korean Go champion Lee Sedol in series of matches pitting human against software in a board game that apparently has more possible positions than there are atoms in the universe.

What’s more amazing about Alpha Go, unlike Deep Blue before it, was that it was not specifically programmed to play Go – it learned to play the game using a general-purpose algorithm.

The big question is what can be done? If anything, or is it to late.

None of the darker visions have deterred researchers and entrepreneurs from pursuing the field. It is hard to fear AI when the simplest demonstrations are more humorous than hair-raising.

The prevailing view among software engineers, who are writing the programs that make AI possible, is that they remain in control of what they program.

But are they really? I think not.

The prevailing view among software engineers, who are writing the programs that make AI possible, is that they remain in control of what they program.

Even if true AI is a far-off prospect, ethical issues are emerging every day.

Artificial intelligence or AI is now getting a foothold in people’s homes, starting with the Amazon devices like its Echo speaker which links to a personal assistant “Alexa” to answer questions and control connected devices such as appliances or light bulbs. Echo’s main advantage is that it connects to Amazon’s range of products and services telling devices to tend to tasks such as ordering goods, checking traffic, making restaurant reservations or searching for information. It also connects to various third-party services like Uber and Domino’s Pizza, so you can just call for a car or a pizza delivery by just telling the Echo what you want.

IBM, whose Watson supercomputer systems are offering “cognitive health” programs which can analyze a person’s genome and offer personalized treatment for cancer, for example.

Google recently announced it had developed an algorithm which can detect diabetic retinopathy, a cause of blindness, by analyzing retina images.

Amazon is seeking to put AI to work in the supermarket—testing a system without cash registers or lines, where consumers simply grab their products and go, and have a bill tallied by artificial intelligence.

Facebook just recently introduced its AI-based Deep Text analytics engine which is said to be able to scan and understand the textual content of thousands of posts per second in more than 20 languages, all with nearly human-like accuracy.

Machine learning is already being used extensively in the social networking site to make sense of and translate some two billion News Feed items per day and the company is planning to use AI to recognise images and allow users to search for photos based on the content in those photos.

The artificial intelligence (AI) component in these programs aims to make create a world in which everyone can have a virtual aide that gets to know them better with each interaction.

AI prowess to make smartphones smarter—Google Allo messenger can, for example, suggest a meeting or deliver relevant information during a conversation. To infuse smartphones and other internet-linked devices with software smarts that help them think like people.

The prospect of AI escaping human control is advancing day by day.

Researchers most deeply engaged in this work are more sanguine. The head of Microsoft Research dismissed Gates’ concern, saying he does not think that humankind will lose control of “certain kinds of intelligences.” He instead is focused on ways that AI will increase human productivity and better lives.

At what cost?

No Algorithm understand the unwritten social behaviors used in daily life, which can vary from one culture to another. More work needs to be done to improve “social intelligence,” or understanding the subtleties of our everyday decisions.

However, the real question on everybody’s minds is – is the rush to get to true AI another step towards Skynet, Terminators and HAL 9000?

Just ponder on this for a moment – if a computer could truly be “smart”, it would soon see that humans are basically the cause of most environmental problems and would come up with an extinction solution that would solve all issues in one fell swoop.

Humans are limited by slow biological evolution and would not be able to compete with software that can redesign itself and evolve faster than any human could.

So what is there to prevent AI from gaining sentience and killing us all?Afficher l'image d'origine

How one can manage something that is sentient is another question altogether.

As we already have industrial robots replacing us in tiresome and repetitive jobs, we might ask ourselves if they’re not going to replace us in all domains?

The population with mobile devices now outnumbering and multiplying faster than humans.

AI and automation provide an opportunity to move beyond business as usual. The global affective computing market is estimated to be 9.3. billion $ a year. By 2020 it will be in the region of 50 billion.

It’s no wonder that the darker visions have not deterred researchers and entrepreneurs from pursuing the field.

We need to remain vigilant on the uses and changes of AI, and maybe even prepare ourselves for a new world where a good part of normal, information research work will die out.

Let’s hope that, should this happen, it will be to the benefit of creative arts which remain entirely ours.

We might already be in the midst of creating a conscious entity of a whole new “utterly inhuman” kind.  Now that would be scary.Afficher l'image d'origine

Perhaps the only solution is a whistle-blower Algorithm.

All comments welcome, all like clicks chucked in the Bin.  

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT ARE OR WILL BE THE HARD FACTS RE BRIXIT.

Tags

, ,

( A troubling seven minute read)

Afficher l'image d'origine

 

Since ancient times, philosophers have tried to devise systems to try to balance the strengths of majority rule against the need to ensure that informed parties get a larger say in critical decisions, not to mention that minority voices are heard.

The Brixit vote is a case in kind.

Originally the European Community was supposed to be a trade agreement to ease all the tariffs and taxes, lower the cost of goods and improve the efficiency of the European member’s economies.  The British voted overwhelmingly voted yes by 67.2% (historic high) for this in 1975.

The real lunacy of the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union was not that British leaders dared to ask their populace to weigh the benefits of membership against the immigration pressures it presents. Rather, it was the absurdly low bar for exit, requiring only a simple majority. Given voter turnout of 70%, this meant that the leave campaign won with only 36% of eligible voters backing it.Prime Minister Theresa May plans to trigger article 50 by the end of March.

Does the vote have to be repeated after a year to be sure? No.

A parliamentary petition for a second referendum has attracted more than one million.

Does a majority in Parliament have to support Brexit? Apparently not.

Did the UK’s population really know what they were voting on?

Absolutely not. Indeed, no one has any idea of the consequences, both for the UK in the global trading system, or the effect on domestic political stability.

This isn’t democracy;

Mrs May’s phrase “Brexit means Brexit” has become a tired cliché.

What exactly, is a fair, democratic process for making irreversible, nation-defining decisions?

Is it really enough to get 52% to vote for breakup, in a country that has three devolved parliaments that voted to stay in.

The idea that somehow any decision reached anytime by majority rule is necessarily “democratic” is a perversion of the term.

Modern democracies have evolved systems of checks and balances to protect the interests of minorities and to avoid making uninformed decisions with catastrophic consequences. The greater and more lasting the decision, the higher the hurdles.

The current international standard for breaking up a country is arguably less demanding than a vote for lowering the drinking age.

What we do know is that, in practice, most countries require a “supermajority” for nation-defining decisions, not a mere 51%. There is no universal figure like 60%, but the general principle is that, at a bare minimum this would be the required percentage.

Brexit should have required, say, two popular votes spaced out over at least two years, followed by a 60% vote in the House of Commons.

In this way if Brexit still prevailed, at least we could know it was not just a one-time snapshot of a fragment of the population.

The current norm of simple majority rule is, as we have just seen on TV with her speech on what Britain wants in the upcoming negotiations is a formula for chaos.

I am afraid it is not going to be a pretty picture.

Talks on Britain’s political divorce from the EU and a possible free trade agreement are going to be complex, lengthy and difficult.

So difficult that there will be no agreement that will satisfy both sides.

You don’t have to blind and deaf to realize that The European Union is an economic and political union between 28 member countries that covers more than four million square kilometres.  It spans countries with more than 508 million citizens, which means it has the third largest population in the world after China and India.

Turkey and the Balkan states of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Albania are now the next in line to join the EU. In addition, Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina have also been promised the prospect of joining when they are ready to. Turkey, alone would add an additional 75 million EU citizens.

The new unelected Prime Minister Theresa May plans to trigger Article 50 – the step that starts the timer on two years of Brexit talks – by the end of March 2017.

Britain, I believe, had the best of all possible deals with the European Union, being a member of the common market without belonging to the euro and having secured a number of other opt-outs from EU rules. And yet that was not enough to stop the United Kingdom’s electorate from voting to leave. Why?

There is no doubt many in England feel the EU is a “bureaucratic monstrosity”, But what exactly do they mean by this? But most of these relate to the terms of UK membership of the Single European Market, where standardisation is needed to ensure a level playing field for trading nations.

None of these, it seems to me, are reasons to go to war with Europe, and deny the benefits of the single market which has undoubtedly boosted prosperity. Trade within Europe has doubled since 1992, thanks to the abolition of tariffs and barriers to the free movement of goods and services in Europe.

What has changed?

European Union (EU) has remained at heart undemocratic, protectionist, centralist and over-bureaucratic.  The EU launched a single currency and the organization now acts as a parliament passing regulations and laws while maintaining an overblown and expensive bureaucracy.

Simply put, unless there was uniformity across all member countries, the aspiration of a single currency and economy, could never hope to be realised.

Here are some hard facts:

What happens if Britain votes for Brexit?

On the day of Brexit, the Great Repeal Bill will come into force and end the supremacy of EU law over Britain’s own legislation.

SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has raised the prospect of a second Scottish independence referendum because most Scots voted to remain in the EU.

Spain’s Government has also called for joint control of Gibraltar and Sinn Fein has demanded a vote to unite Ireland and Northern Ireland.

There is ongoing uncertainty over what will happen once Britain leaves the EU because it has to make new trade agreements with the rest of the world. Under EU rules the UK cannot negotiate a trade deal until after it leaves the bloc.

The Brexit vote has led to higher import costs but was good news for exporters who had struggled with the high value of the pound.

Now Britain has voted to leave the EU, it will no longer have to contribute billions of pounds a year towards the European Union’s budget.

Britain is now free to take back control of its borders in order to curb immigration and increase security. The UK will no longer have to accept ‘free movement of people’ from Europe if this country leaves the EU’s single market.

Companies based in the UK may decide to relocate if they can no longer access the single market.

Eurosceptic populist parties across the Continent have delightedly seized on Brexit in an attempt to further their own campaigns for independence.

Scare tactics and rumours will intensify from both sides and it will be hard to find clarity.

As a result Brexit negotiations will be made more difficult because EU bosses will want to discourage other countries from following suit.

It looks just as likely Scotland Wales and Norther Ireland that voted to stay could find themselves out of the EU by staying in the UK.

The EU has said that Britain will have to allow the free movement of EU workers if it decides to stay in the internal market. Mrs May looks set to take Britain out of the EU’s single market in order to end the free movement of EU workers that goes with it.

There will be a saving ( depending on which contribution figures you believe of about £136m a week. This equates to  less than 40% of the amount splashed on the battlebus.

MAP

You may rest assured no matter what way these negotiations go they will be very expensive (both politically and economically)  and they will  “mostly amount to hot air”, rather than concrete plans for the future of the European Union or the United Kingdom’s.

“Whatever the UK vote is in the end , we must take long hard look on the future of the European Union.

The election of Donald Trump as the next US President means that Britain is now at the “front of the queue” for an US trade deal. If you believe that

june-in-review-3.jpg

May also said that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.”

Making threats to the rest of Europe and cozying up to Trump (I hope she wears a cricket box for that first meeting).

It’s the sheer arrogance of the current government to say it’s all about taking back control of our borders and laws.’

Having her cake and eating it. Not on your nanny.

There will be what the EU want and you can bet your life they have their demands.

And if she isn’t going to have her own way – and for the ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ yeah – try to get those FTA’s if they know you’ll walk out of them when your toys thrown out of the pram – that means anything she signs isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

Ignoring the fact that, schools and hospitals struggling with budget cuts , a pound worth 20% less than it was in June 2016 and a Scotland that would appear to be now set yet again on the road to independence.

I think the cleaner the break the better.

Change hurts and change is happening at a faster rate than ever before.

In effect you are being sold down the river. Your lives have now been designated as “negotiation capital”. Britannia does not rule the waves. Afficher l'image d'origine

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE WRITES DONALD TRUMP INAUGURAL ADDRESS.

Tags

,

( A one minute speech)

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump hugs a U.S. flag as he takes the stage for a campaign town hall meeting in Derry

 

 

 

” BELIEVE IN ME my fellow Americans, these shining words are not entirely my own.

I alone can make America great again. Fix it.

So let’s avoid unseemly excitement about today’s routine transfer of power.

You have hired me only to administer one of our three branches of government, and only for four years.

I hope it will pass without having to bother you with reminders of my existence.

Weeks during which there will be nothing much of importance to hear from or about me as I go about the humdrum business of seeing that the laws enacted here on Capitol Hill are faithfully executed.

I promise you this: On the 100th day of my administration, America will be . . . pretty much indistinguishable from what it is today.

I will bring the country together, bring the country back to work, making sure we’re safe and secure, making sure Americans are safe in their homes and jobs by building walls.

Would you, my over-excited countrymen, really want it any other way?

Things are much better than they once were — slavery? gone; the Oregon Trail? replaced by the Interstate Highway System — but things could be better.

We have nothing to fear but you’re insufficient fear of what has been done on your behalf and at your behest. The nation’s fate is now in my hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in yours or the CIA.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

Look, I’m going to give a short inauguration. I am a work in progress.

I alone Donald J Trump, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Let’s just say that I would not remember now who provided one word or one line.

Ask not what you country can do but what I can do for the country. We are all going to have a special relationship.”

Whatever the tone or the message, history tells us the first day of the Trump presidency will be remembered largely for the words the new president speaks.

Republican presidential candidate Donald J.Trump addresses the audience during a campaign event            Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in Greensboro

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS IT TIME TO REDEFINE HUMANITY

Tags

, , , ,

( Follow up read of three minutes to the last Post)

Humanity has achieved its current level of freedom following centuries of sacrifices and struggles, which we are now wittingly or unwittingly transferring to Artificial Intelligence.Afficher l'image d'origine

For obvious reasons it will not be us that ventures out into the Universe, but a self-sustaining machine equipped with all human knowledge, that may decide not to return as it acquires more knowledge beyond our comprehension.

No matter: We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before. It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.Afficher l'image d'origine

We do not yet know just how it will unfold, but one thing is clear: the digital revolution that has been occurring since the middle of the last century. It is already changing our health and leading to a “quantified” self, and sooner than we think it may lead to human augmentation.

The possibilities of billions of people connected by mobile devices, with unprecedented processing power, storage capacity, and access to knowledge, are unlimited. And these possibilities will be multiplied by emerging technology breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet of Things, autonomous vehicles, 3-D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, energy storage, and quantum computing.

It’s time to let go of the United Nations declaration of Human Rights and to redefine them, effectively addressing people’s needs, not ideology, should dictate the new definition.Afficher l'image d'origine

Centuries ago human knowledge increased slowly, so politics and economics changed at a leisurely pace too. Today our knowledge is increasing a breakneck speed, and theoretically we should understand the world better and better. But the very opposite happening.

Our new-found knowledge leads to faster economic, social and political changes; in an attempt to understand what is happening, we accelerate the accumulation of knowledge, which leads to faster and greater upheavals.

Consequently we are less and less able to make sense of the present or forecast the future. While the outside world is changing, the humanitarian sector has simply not been able to adapt to new challenges.

Digital fabrication technologies, meanwhile, are interacting with the biological world on a daily basis. Engineers, designers, and architects are combining computational design, additive manufacturing, materials engineering, and synthetic biology to pioneer a symbiosis between microorganisms, our bodies, the products we consume, and even the buildings we inhabit.

Change has a way of scaring people—scaring them into inaction.

I am a great enthusiast and early adopter of technology, but sometimes I wonder whether the inexorable integration of technology in our lives could diminish some of our quintessential human capacities, such as compassion and cooperation. Our relationship with our smartphones is a case in point. Constant connection may deprive us of one of life’s most important assets: the time to pause, reflect, and engage in meaningful conversation.

Neither technology nor the disruption that comes with it is an exogenous force over which humans have no control.Afficher l'image d'origine

All of us are responsible for guiding its evolution, in the decisions we make on a daily basis as citizens, consumers, and investors. We should thus grasp the opportunity and power we have to shape the Fourth Industrial Revolution and direct it toward a future that reflects our common. objectives and values.

We therefore must redefine what it is to be human.

Should we view prosperity in a society as the accumulation of solutions to human problems. Instead of measuring growth through GDP.

Perhaps growth should be measured by the rate at which new solutions to human problems become available and the degree to which we make those solutions broadly accessible.

The alternative is to watch as animals and plants go extinct, water becomes scarce, weather hits more extremes, conflicts over land and resources increase, and life becomes more difficult for people everywhere.

We need to shape a future that works for all of us by putting people first and empowering them not just to control Artificial Intelligence., but all technology that is designed for Profit sake only.

If we connect the dots it is certain that “People, Planet, Profit” will be the new tomorrow.

Now that everything is digital Data Privacy is abstract, There’s an air of resignation around the concept of privacy these days.

It’s about the ones and zeros, the metadata underlying our everyday digital lives.

As the physical, digital, and biological worlds continue to converge, new technologies and platforms will increasingly enable citizens to engage with governments, voice their opinions, coordinate their efforts, and even circumvent the supervision of public authorities.

As the human population continues to increase, animal numbers are falling it’s about protecting what is yours, by creating digital spaces where you have control.

There’s a strong correlation.

A new definition of Human/ Technological rights will lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness based on a shared sense of destiny.

It is incumbent on us all to make sure the latter prevails.

Meanwhile, changes in the tools of war – including drones and automated weapons – point to a more remote and anonymous form of warfare. Continued civilian suffering in conflicts in Syria, South Sudan and Yemen is a sobering reminder of the international community’s continued failure.

Piecemeal reforms amount to tinkering around the edges.

Only when we realize that we are for the moment all on the same planet can all enjoy the many gifts Earth provides.Afficher l'image d'origine

 

 

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY ASKS: WHERE IS THE VOICE OF THE WORLD’S YOUTH ?

Tags

, , , , , , ,

 

( Eight minute read.)

When you look at the state of the world you have to ask yourself have we all lost our marbles, and where is the protest voice of the Young.Afficher l'image d'origine

You could say that we are well along in the process of causing our own extinction and the planet has officially entered its sixth mass extinction event.

Such a view is now beginning to occasionally find its way into mainstream consciousness.

The situation is already so serious with so many self-reinforcing feedback loops already in play it seem we are on a rolling coaster, incapable of acting,or if we do, it will be after the event, if there is anything left to save.

We have a vast choice of the end-of-humanity scenarios to pick from, to derail life as we know it.

For example:

A self-induced catastrophe such as nuclear war or a bioengineered pandemic. Disruptive innovation and technological changes, Solar storms, Cosmic collisions, Super volcanoes, Rising sea levels, overcrowding, denuded resources to mention just a few.

We’re driving to extinction at least 150 species each day.

Nuclear power plants require grid-tied electricity, cooling water and people getting paychecks. Without all these, they melt down, thus immersing all life on earth in ionizing radiation.

As if the above is not enough we are now selling or most valuable resource – Intelligence. Afficher l'image d'origine

So what can be done?

First of all, internal and external issues are more linked than ever. Now, more than ever, we need principled leaders with an understanding of history.

Freedom and the rule of law are under threat.

Why?

Because while the world teeters on a precipice of being plundered by Capitalist Artificial intelligence. A new reality is taking shape: war is called peace, a bloody victory is a step towards reconciliation, and a terrorist regime is a legitimate power.

The further we removed ourselves from the world the worse will be our encounter with the world beyond.

Ignoring the unregulated introduction of Artificial Intelligence.

All causing disillusionment and confusion with the great visions of the future, all are demanding that we cope as one with the present reality with our ability to protest hijacked by Internet petitions sites that are ignored or focused on parochial problems.

An individuals future is shaped ultimately by environmental factors.

The year 2017 opens on a world laid to waste. Some areas are littered with mass graves and there doesn’t seem to be any big global rush to reduce emissions as a result of the Paris Climate Agreement.

In the end, no amount of research can do much to prevent permafrost melting realising, methane – a greenhouse gas 100 times more potent than carbon dioxide on a shorter timescale into the atmosphere, warming it further, which in turn causes more permafrost to melt, and so on.

Scientists estimate up to 13 percent of global carbon emissions come from deforestation – greater than emissions from every car, truck and plane on the planet combined.

Because Globalism is an ideology, and its struggle with nationalism it will shape the coming era.

Afficher l'image d'origineAfficher l'image d'origine

Donald J. Trump five months short of seventy-one will take office on January 20. His election tips us into the unknown threatened disengagement from the world.

Mother Teresa in the Uk wants disengagement from the EU.

Both are successful alpha personalities.  Both work in progress—“Everything is negotiable”—both displaying a single-minded determination to impose their vision on the world, an irrational belief in unreasonable goals, bordering at times on lunacy.

From Brexit to Trump to the rise of nationalist parties across Europe, the old division between left and right is giving way to a battle between self-styled patriots and confounded globalists.

For decades, trade, industrialization and demographics produced a virtuous circle of rising prosperity. By the 2000s, globalism was triumphant.

IT IS NOW OVERREACHED AND BLIND to the nationalist backlash, not to mention the new form of Globalisation – Artificial Intelligence.

Many globalists now assume that the discontent is largely driven by stagnant wages and inequality. If people are upset about immigration, they reason, it is largely because they fear competition with low-wage workers and not the technological Revolution that is replacing their need to work in the first place. Yet their faith in open borders remains unshaken.

That crisis has woken up globalists to the flaws of globalization but not it seems to me the pending exploration of Apps run on Algorithms that are designed to create profit for the Monopolies of the Internet.  Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, to mention a few.

Many of the tech industry’s biggest companies, like Amazon, Google, IBM and Microsoft, are jockeying to become the go-to company for A.I. In the industry’s lingo, the companies are engaged in a “platform war.”

The company that controls A.I. will steer the tech industry for years to come.

In fact, much of the backlash against immigration (and globalism) is not economic but cultural: Many people still care about their own versions of national identity and mistrust global institutions such as the EU.

These voters are bothered less by competition from immigrants than by their perceived effect on the country’s linguistic, religious and cultural norms. About how changes to “the composition of the local population” would affect “their neighborhoods, schools and workplaces.”

They might have their priorities slightly wrong.

Is the new nationalism a cloak for ethnic and religious exclusion?

New nationalism often thrives on xenophobia.

Globalists should not equate concern for cultural norms and national borders with xenophobia.

There must be some sort of middle ground between a nationalist and globalist approach. In short, there is ample reason for skepticism about whether the new nationalists can prove themselves a genuinely secular, democratic alternative to globalism.

If globalists are to regain the public’s trust, they will need to re-examine their own policies. Political capital might be better invested in preserving existing trade pacts, not passing new ones. Many European globalists blame the euro’s crisis on too little integration, not too much. But pressing for a more federal Europe could further alienate voters who “do not share our Euro-enthusiasm,”

Borders use to mean something, but this version of civilization is the least sustainable of them all. We cannot sustain the unsustainable forever in a world more interconnected.

In fact, 2017 is looking pretty bad…Russia dominating the world order. But it too will pop. New cyber attacks.

In this context, the basic principles of democratic life in both Europe and the U.S. — truth, fact-based reality, justice and the rule of law — are being gradually eroded.

The most important thing is to understand what might steer us towards a more secure world order, where respect for the rule of law and for international bodies are granted their proper place.

European powers may choose to find strength in their union. Brought together by the need to combat those who threaten fundamental European values, Paris, Berlin, Rome and the Benelux countries could launch new initiatives to bring about real European cooperation.

Should these institutions find themselves unable to take a stand and act according to global interests and basic values, there is no reason why 2017 should not continue in the same vein as 2016, and the consequences may be irreversible.

It’s time to abandon our usual pessimism about the state of the planet and the course of history. We’ve got many challenges to overcome, but it might be a good idea to adopt a bit of youthful optimism when it comes to confronting them.

We need to create a hope insurgency. 

Despite half of the world’s youth living on less than two dollars a day.

A social media revolution is unfolding before our eyes, forever changing the way we connect. This generation, the most interconnected generation ever, continues to grow rapidly, but its voice is diluted by Social media making the challenges they face are ever more daunting.

We need to ask ourselves:

How can we can empower youth to drive social progress. From crowd-sourcing initiatives and mobile-projects to innovation jams and social media campaigns.

Whatever changes you would like to effect in our society has to begin with you.Afficher l'image d'origine

The best leaders the world has ever known are the reformers who were accountable and responsible for their own change.

The commitment for change has no days off, does not allow for excuses, does not allow for pardons. If you want to see change you must first start within.

It’s that simple and it’s that profound.

So where is the Global YOUTH Outrage?Afficher l'image d'origine

Before there were blogs and tweets – even Wikipedia – to turn to, the mainstream media held a monopoly over knowledge and news which was hard to challenge. Now all knowledge is being collected by Google to feed Artificial Intelligent Algorithms.

THE world must change to meet the wave of popular uprising which catapulted Donald Trump to power and brought about Brexit. The world can be changed as much by education as by being harangued. It’s time for international leaders to bury their liberal attitudes and address the concerns of the masses. It is time for government to act in the long-term interest of the people, even if they do not agree in the short-term.

The twin pillars of liberalism and globalisation which have dominated politics over the past generation must adapt to a “world transformed”.

Society is changing rapidly and I fear that many organisations are failing to notice and are being left behind. I suspect that the scale of such a change can only really be appreciated in hindsight.

In the rich world, particularly, the first generation that has rung up a huge national debt and established a huge unfunded pension scheme is about to retire. The interesting, to say the least, question is whether the next generation will be willing to carry this burden and peacefully pay the debt and peacefully pay the pensions. I think not.

WILL THE WORLD OF 2052 BE A BETTER WORLD?

It’s important to note that people 35 years from now will judge their circumstance more on how it has changed from their own recent past than from our vantage point of today.

Billion will have some level of Internet access, be much better informed, and be increasingly helped by local solar energy. They will have many fewer children. They will be largely urban (except for the minority still living off the land). They will grapple with overall effects of climate damage, but those in dense urban areas will likely have little firsthand experience with the damage caused by the erratic weather (though plenty of secondhand information via electronic media). They will live with the unpleasant knowledge that even more climate impacts lie ahead.

There will be huge differences between people and Artificial Intelligence.

There is be no such thing as the Free Market.

People power hopefully will have transformed the world. From a psychological perspective, probably no, because the future prospects in 2052 will be grim.

University is where such simplistic notions are supposed to be challenged, but they now educate for the market place and not for Intelligence.

The winners of tomorrow will be those organizations with strong leaders who demonstrate agility, authenticity, connectivity to their talent, and sustainability.

By 2018, at least 50 percent of developers will include A.I. features in what they create. The goal is to capture all human knowledge and turn it in saleable AI. It’s where the capitalist market is headed.

No worries, you might say: you could just program it to make

The superintelligent machine manufactures some as-yet-uninvented raw-computing material (call it “computronium”) and uses that to check each doubt. But each new doubt yields further digital doubts, and so on, until the entire earth is converted to computronium.

When a computer became capable of independently devising ways to achieve goals, it would very likely be capable of introspection—and thus able to modify its software and make itself more intelligent. In short order, such a computer would be able to design its own hardware.

If this sounds absurd to you, you’re not alone.

I am one protesting voice in the wilderness of the virtual reality, but I am sure there are billions.

The problem is unifying them into one collective protest to demand that the United nations pass a people’s resolution to give all artificial Intelligence and technological advances a stamp of human approval.

All comments, suggestions, welcome, all like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: IN FIVE YEARS, THERE WILL NO LONGER BE A ROYAL FAMILY OR UNITED KINGDOM.

Tags

, , ,

( A three-minute read)

The UK anthem got me thinking…

If you were starting a 21st-century democracy from scratch you wouldn’t

dream of having a hereditary head of state.

These days this is undoubtedly true, it is also true that the history of the past 50 years ago shows that starting democracies from scratch is very hard.

“Is there any point in the Royal family?”

The Royals represent and reiterate that the class system is still firmly in place in the UK.

If the monarchy is to continue in modern Britain they will have to adapt and change. The modern Royal Family must continue to live more in touch with their subjects if they are to survive as an institution in a democratic 21st Century Britain.

Leaving the EU won’t affect the Royals it will however change the Brit culture and add much-needed collective synergy aspiring for common aims.

So is a Royal Family still relevant today, it’s all about equality, and right now, so are they just a parasitic anarchic family blessed with vast riches, or are they essential to a country with no written constitution.

It is hard to shake off the debilitating tag when the head of state and her hangers-on attain their positions not through popularity, talent, or industry, but by the mere fact of their birth.

Presently England is recognized as a monarchy…BRITS ARE SUBJECTS OF THE MONARCH. Ultimately the Parliament and the army are under the control of her highness.

The Royal family aren’t elected, which can be seen as undemocratic.

They inherit their status and for this to apply to a nation that’s so heavy on encouraging democracy it may be seen as hypocritical.

They cost the taxpayer approximately 52p each year

Queen Elizabeth II, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres. The value of her landholding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx). She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory.

The Queen may be a constitutional monarch, in which her roles as the head of the state are mostly just symbolic, as she occasionally represents Britain in her state visits – so her holidays are covered as well?

Royalists will say that having a Monarchy makes no difference to the validity of democracy. Just so long as the Monarchy doesn’t interfere with the democratic process of the nation then they are nothing more than national figureheads with no real power or influence.

This may well be so.

Yet in theory, at least, she has considerable powers: to wage war, sign treaties, dissolve Parliament, and more.

They will also say that the monarchy is needed for tourism and the economy. That’s NOT what it’s there for. It’s there for political reasons.

To keep Britain’s monarchy does not entail keeping it in its current form. Britain would be a lot stronger if its head of state were elected.

Why?

Because its entangled history of democracy and monarchy has left Britain with a highly centralized constitution that locates the nation’s sovereignty in “the king in parliament”—a situation that gives the leader of the majority party in the legislature a disturbingly large part of the power that was once vested entirely in the monarchy.

This situation could be remedied quite easily by keeping the crown but changing its constitutional basis to one along the lines of that most excellent of countries, Belgium.

Belgium is a popular monarchy. Its constitution makes clear that sovereignty rests in the people; the King (or Queen, though it has yet to have one)—who is King of the Belgians, a people, not Belgium, a territory— becomes monarch not by right, but by taking an oath to uphold the people’s constitution.

Without a written constitution the question is: Who elected the royal family, they are self-made, what makes them royal? After all, basically, they are German immigrants.

I have nothing against them personally, as I am a humanist at heart and these people are simply other human beings born into their roles.

Britain has a class system which, to be honest, is going to rip that country apart and the royal family is a symbol of that class system and the divide will ultimately dissolve.

All that says;

They are just some human beings, related to every other living organism on our Earth in some way. The fact that a monarchy is not intellectually justifiable does not mean that it does not have a stabilizing role.

To have a real sovereign Nation you need to be free of the monarchy in order to be truly free. To bow down and call somebody ‘your highness?’ It doesn’t make sense to me.

The case against hereditary appointments in public life is straightforward: they are incompatible with democracy and meritocracy.

The second pitfall is subtler: in the belief that the monarchy forms some kind of constitutional backstop against an over-mighty Parliament, Britain is strangely relaxed about the lack of serious checks on its government.

Because it has no written constitution; the current government has plans to repeal a law implementing the European Convention on Human Rights, which many Britons recklessly consider a nuisance rather than a safeguard.

A change to the British constitution which made the kingdom’s various people’s sovereign and the head of state the guardian of that sovereignty, not the source of it, would be a welcome plank in the more general program of reform that the British state clearly needs. The trouble with hereditary succession and leaving the European Union is that you never know quite who or what you’re going to get.

The fourth verse of the UK anthem reads “rebellious Scot to crush” just thought that’s worth mentioning! The Royal family was the most ruthless biggest crooks at some point.

Pressing Articular 50 to disconnect from the EU in a world that is all about connectivity to my mind is Artificial Intelligence personified.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨